Plans ignore cyclists

My local supermarket was designed by a driver, for drivers. This, despite the fact I live in Hackney, London, where less than half the population drives and 70% of shopping trips in the borough are made on foot. Nine buses stop outside the supermarket and most of the customers live in nearby flats, but my supermarket would rather everyone drove - and they have designed everything to try and ensure we do.

They have built the entrance round the back, away from the road but next to the car park. Anyone who doesn't drive has to enter through the back door and squeeze past the checkouts. The three bike stands shoved in a corner are seriously uninviting - adorned with rusty frames whose wheels have been stolen. I tend to walk because I'm scared my bike will get nicked. In short, if you don't drive, you're made to feel unwelcome.

For years, an obscure government document called PPG13 placed strict limits on the number of parking spaces in new developments. Now the department of communities and local government has decided to tear up these restrictions, leaving developers free to build car parks as big as they like. It sounds trivial, but those restrictions were about the only thing keeping car culture in check. Why? Because car parks take up space and so shops get built out of town where land is cheaper. This makes them difficult to cycle to - and surrounded by busy roads - so people drive. The owners see a full car park and congratulate themselves on a job well done.

Developers wanted the restrictions lifted because they have decided that people who own cars spend more than people who don't. This is nonsense: drivers spend more per visit, but only come once a week, whereas cyclists spend less each time but are always popping in. I would spend more if I thought my panniers would still be attached to the bike when I'd finished shopping.

It's not just supermarkets - I am constantly battling councils who build new housing or offices on the outskirts of town. One councillor in Milton Keynes showed me a new development that he was especially proud of: "We had to really fight with the developers to get them to insulate properly," he told me, declaring the rows of identikit housing "as close to carbon-neutral as we could get". However, apart from one newsagent in the heart of the estate, there were no local shops or services. Where were people supposed to go shopping? He pointed to the twin parking spaces outside each house and told me that the shops were a 10-minute drive away - in a giant retail park, loaded with parking spaces. Any cyclist who wants a pint of milk has to cycle five miles along a dual carriageway. Even I would rather drive.

It is hard enough to persuade people out of their cars without the government moving the goalposts on us. The trick is to prevent people needing a car in the first place. The cost of motoring is mostly up front: once you've shelled out for a car and insured it, you get better value for money the more it gets driven. Once you have bought a car, moved to the suburbs and got a job in an out-of-town business park, your lifestyle requires you to drive everywhere. There's no point in the government asking you to cycle to work - it's impossible to imagine travelling any other way.

For cycling to break into the mainstream we have to reduce the need to drive, by building homes near shops and workplaces. Unfortunately, the government has other ideas. Removing restrictions on car parks has nothing going for it - unless you're a developer with land to flog. The government talks about wanting us to cycle, but helps developers lock us into our cars. Isn't getting people on their bikes enough of an uphill struggle already?

· Richard George is campaigns coordinator for CTC, the national cyclists' organisation.